SAMUEL VALLADARES
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A defendant's convictions by a six-person jury are constitutional, a childhood photograph of the victim is admissible to prove her age and aid jury understanding of testimony, and alleged trial court error regarding jury questions cannot be based on conjecture without an established factual predicate.
[1] A trial court's alleged error in handling jury questions cannot be reviewed on appeal when the record contains no evidence that the jury submitted a question and the appe…
[2] A childhood photograph of a crime victim is admissible when relevant to establish the victim's age at the time of the offense, even though the victim is an adult at trial…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“As a general rule[,] it is said that the admissibility of photographs does not depend upon whether the objects depicted could be described by testimony but whether they would be useful in enabling the witness to better describe and the jury to better understand the testimony concerned.”
Court citing Dillen v. State regarding the proper standard for admitting photographs into evidence.
Samuel Valladares was convicted by a six-person jury in Broward County. The victim, an eighteen-year-old adult at trial, testified about offenses comm…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.410 cases and more on FLexlaw
GERBER, J.
We affirm the defendant’s convictions, concluding that the defendant’s three arguments on appeal lack merit.
First, the defendant argues the trial court violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410 and committed per se reversible error when it failed to inform the defendant’s trial counsel and the state about the existence of a jury question, and then did not give an answer to the question without allowing for inquiry from the defendant’s trial counsel or the state. However, nothing in the record indicates that the jury submitted the subject question to the trial court. Further, the defendant’s appellate counsel did not request to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court in an attempt to establish the necessary factual predicate that the jury had submitted the subject question to the trial court. Without this factual predicate, the defendant’s first argument is based on conjecture only and therefore lacks merit. See Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632, 635 (Fla. 1974) (“Reversible error cannot be predicated on conjecture.”). Second, the defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the state to admit a photo of the alleged victim as a small child. According to the defendant, the photo was irrelevant, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, because the photo did not tend to prove or disprove any material fact and served only to garner sympathy for the alleged victim from the jury. We disagree. The photo was relevant to prove the element of the victim’s age at the time of the charged offenses, and enabled the victim, who was an eighteen-year-old adult by the time of trial, to better describe, and the jury to better understand, her testimony about her age when the defendant committed the charged offenses. See Dillen v. State, 202 So. 2d 904, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967) (“As a general rule[,] it is said that the admissibility of photographs does not depend upon whether the objects depicted could be described by testimony but whether they would be useful in enabling the witness to better describe and the jury to better understand the testimony concerned.”). Further, we see nothing in the photo itself which would have garnered the jury’s sympathy.
Third, the defendant argues his convictions by a six-person jury violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This argument lacks merit. We already have rejected this argument in several cases, beginning with Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“[T]he [United States] Supreme Court held in Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct. 1893, 26 L. Ed. 2d 446 (1970), that six-person juries were constitutionally permissible.”).
Affirmed.
WARNER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970)
- Sullivan v. State, 303 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 1974)
- Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)
- Dillen v. State, 202 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)